High road or low road?

It looks very much as if Humza Yousaf has drawn the short straw in becoming SNP Leader and First Minister of Scotland at the very moment his party implodes.

Nicola Surgeon was always going to be a hard act to follow. But even her iron grip was beginning to loosen towards the end of her tenure in office and her surprise resignation took place against a backdrop of falling support for her Independence prospectus, shared rather than majority government at Holyrood, poor governance in many areas, grave legislative missteps, rumours of scandal, compounded by a resurgent Unionist Labour Party. Although she appeared to have the magic touch, even she could only keep the genie in the bottle for so long. This morning it escaped, 

Anything I write from here on must be heavily caveated because the full facts are not yet known and may take time to emerge. The long and the short of it, though, is that this morning Scottish police arrested Sturgeon's husband, Peter Murrell, and are searching their marital home and the SNP's headquarters. This is apparently in connection with the whereabouts of some £600,000 of public donations towards the costs of fighting a future Independence referendum.

Murrell, as well as being Sturgeon's husband, was also CEO of the SNP from 1999 until resigning last month. Inevitably, there has been speculation that the resignations of husband and wife are linked in some way and may have a bearing on Sturgeon's unexpected departure from the roles of SNP Leader and First Minister. It is now up to a police investigation to establish the facts of the matter but an interesting historical parallel presents itself.

Specifically, I'm thinking of the problems which beset the Irish Home Rule movement in the late-19th century when its leader, Charles Parnell, found himself embroiled in a personal scandal. In his case, the issue centred around adultery and divorce, both hugely shocking matters in the Victorian era. This is not to suggest in any way that there are any similar issues between Murrell and Sturgeon. No, the similarity between the two cases lies, rather, in the adverse impact a scandal can have on the fortunes of a popular political campaign.

Charles Stewart Parnell (1846-1891) was an Irish nationalist politician who served as a Westminster MP from 1875 to 1891, also acting as Leader of the Home Rule League from 1880 to 1882 and then Leader of the Irish Parliamentary Party from 1882 to 1891. His party held the balance of power in the House of Commons during the Home Rule debates of 1885–1886. This gave him enormous sway over the Liberal Prime Minister, William Gladstone (rather similar to that of the DUP in Theresa May's government). Although campaigning for Irish Home Rule while remaining part of the United Kingdom, philosophically Parnell harked back to the so-called 'Grattan's Parliament', the last independent parliament in Ireland before the Act of Union of 1801 led to its abolition, centring power in Westminster, as had happened to Scotland under the Act of Union of 1707.

The scandal in his personal life severely damaged Parnell's cause and ruined his health. He died of pneumonia, an exhausted man, aged only forty-five. But though disappointed in politics he was, at the last, happily married to his erstwhile mistress, Katherine O'Shea. The damage done to Ireland as a result of his failure is incalculable and it is interesting (albeit fruitless) to consider how the tragic history of a divided Ireland might have been avoided had he succeeded in his campaign.

Sadly, I suspect Scottish Independence may now go the same way as Irish Home Rule.


Popular posts from this blog

On old age

"The fact is that when I come to think it over, I find that there are four reasons for old age being thought unhappy: First, that it withdraws us from active employments; second, that it enfeebles the body; third, that it deprives us of nearly all physical pleasures; fourth, that it is the next step to death."  Writing his essay,  De Senectute (On Old Age), in 44 BCE, Marcus Tullius Cicero went on to refute these four supposed reasons in characteristically robust and forthright manner. Cicero wasn't one to sit about moping in his own old age; he remained actively engaged in the political life of the Republic whose survival, in the face of tyranny, he championed so fiercely.  Cicero was nine years younger than I am now when he met his untimely end yet he considered himself already an old man; or, rather, his society judged him to be so. His second point about age enfeebling is more germane. Physical decline had not yet impacted him but, six years on from my retirement, I
Read more

Born to rule

When, ten days ago, I posted my piece about the manipulated image of Catherine, Princess of Wales, and her children (see Snap Judgment) I didn't know of her cancer treatment. Had I known, I would have adopted a gentler, though I hope no less critical, tone. But I didn't know, and nor did any of us outside the immediate royal circle, which rather goes to strengthen the case against the monarchy. For Kate and her family the diagnosis of cancer (as yet unspecified) will have been a devastating blow, as will the chemotherapy she is currently undergoing. On a human level, of course I sympathise and extend my best wishes for a full recovery as, indeed, I did at the time of her father-in-law's diagnosis. It is particularly cruel, then, that on top of all this she has been obliged to record a video statement to reassure the public. As if she didn't have enough to contend with already. But such is the unpalatable obligation placed upon any royal personage - noblesse oblige. Whic
Read more

Working to rule

An avowed republican I may be but news of King Charles III's cancer diagnosis is nevertheless a cause of sadness - I might not want him, or anyone else, as my king but I wish the man no harm.  However, Jonathan Swift's opinion that "health is the greatest of all possessions; a pale cobbler is better than a sick king" serves as a timely reminder that ill-health in the monarch is not simply a personal matter, it has constitutional implications. To be blunt about it, Charles' death, in constitutional terms at least, would be no great problem; the king is dead, long live the king. The succession is assured and the crown would pass immediately to the Prince of Wales, who would be pronounced William V. The ship of state would sail on. A long-term or debilitating illness, on the other hand, could have far-reaching consequences for the institution of the monarchy at a sensitive time, coming so soon after the death of Britain's longest-reigning monarch, Charles' mo
Read more